Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Get a new bike from $50 per week

Atonement and forgiveness for child porn fiend

By johnboy 21 April 2005 27

ABC Online brings the happy news, that one David John Fairhall of Banks, depite being found guilty of having more than 70,000 images of child pornography has walked away from the court a free man.

In sentencing, chief magistrate Ron Cahill described the offence as nasty and vile, but said Fairhall had done all he could to ensure he does not reoffend.

He imposed a 12-month suspended jail term and ordered Fairhall be assessed for entry into a sex offenders program.

Not exactly an example to encourage the others.*

* In this country [England] it is thought well to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to
Atonement and forgiveness for child porn fiend
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
london 11:48 am 06 Mar 16

After serving sentences paedophiles should be moved to a type of compound until they have participated in as many programs as deemed necessary to keep their urges in check.
Only released if authorities can assure the public they are safe.
Any who kill children should never be released again but they are.

Valleyboy 10:41 pm 23 Apr 05

When a paedophile escapes a custodial sentence, or is eventually released from custody, there’s a usual outcry of “Why can’t they put them somewhere where there aren’t kids?” (somewhere very unlike Banks, for instance).

At the same time, on the odd occasion when you hear of some property mover-and-shaker proposing to set up a substantial adults-only housing development (and I don’t mean your normal retirement village here), there’s another outcry about “How dare you develop a ghetto where kids can’t live — no, we won’t tolerate that!”

I’m slight amused by the contradiction — although, at the same time, I don’t think prospective buyers into an adults-only housing development would envisage moving into a possible paedophile dumping ground, either …

RandomGit 7:39 pm 23 Apr 05

Kath, people don’t watch porn and then go raping because rape isn’t depicted in standard porn. If it is it isn’t legal in this country anyway so you’ll get done if you get busted.

By getting and using those images David Fairhall is complicit in an act of sexual abuse of a child. He should be punished as well as rehabilitated. It isn’t a precautionary law, they have supported the abuse of children, the law has been actually broken, not just potentially.

This sentence tells peadophiles that they might as well get away with it while they can, cause when you’re caught you won’t lose anything for it. Only after will you be punished for reoffence.

LurkerGal 5:52 pm 23 Apr 05

VG: Apology offered. I’m so sorry – I don’t know WHY I thought it was from you. I was SURE that comment was from “VG”, but I’ve looked and it’s an ACC. My mistake.

vg 1:01 pm 23 Apr 05

“VG, I believe that he means it is an urge, like being homosexual, or heterosexual. If you are attracted to women, you won’t change, if you are attracted to men, you won’t change, if you are attracted to little kids……”

Ummmm……I haven’t posted on this thread. Perhaps an apology is in order

Kath 10:32 am 23 Apr 05

OK, Apocalypse, I’ll bite. I *was* joking about people with pr0n-filled drives living a largely sex-free life (although having 70,000 pics may indicate that you don’t get out much, and certainly my porn-obsessed IT friends back in my uni days didn’t see much action) since the rest of my post seemed a bit serious.

It’s sad that your friends pick up women that they (or you) call skanks. But obviously the women involved are consenting to do the “nasty” acts, and I imagine that they’re just as keen to use their temporary partners for fantasy-fodder as your young friends are.

What I was saying was that most people who download porn don’t then go and rape other people, and you seem to agree with me. Underage sex is rape, as is isn’t legally consensual (no, not even that pretty 16 year old) and in the case of young children (which is who we all think of when we think paedophile) certainly involves a violent act of domination. Maybe they’d get ideas, but there’s a large step between thinking and doing, esp doing something that’s so socially unacceptable.

Sure, possession of kiddie-porn is illegal, and has been made so in order to do something towards shutting down the industry – therefore decent penalties need to be in place. However, I do disagree with the earlier posts that anyone who *views* that kind of imagery should be automatically castrated. Anyway, adult castration can still leave the person functioning sexually, so there’s scarcely any point – it might slow the sex drive a little, moreso as time goes on, but the *brain* is the largest sexual organ in the human body and they will still have desires. What really needs working on is the guy’s head, before he takes that large step towards doing something harmful, and hopefully this will happen for him now.

Kath – a 31 year old librarian, who’s been on the Net since 1994, and has a BF who likes porn (duh). Note: Librarian = someone who sees all types of humanity, and knows the secret things you read.

Loudon Prufrock 8:32 am 23 Apr 05

Oh No! Not the same Anonymous that supported young Aidan’s vandalism! You turned into Random C*unt then. Do you intnend to turn into Random Kiddyf*ucker now? Please get some help.

Apocalypse 5:34 am 23 Apr 05

oh yeah another thing kath, just because somebody has a large collection of porn does not mean they dont get none, im not speaking personally, i am happy with my mojo and how it works with my beautiful girlfriend, but my younger mates who go out to civic and pick up skanks generally have a large collection of porn, they play this little game where they try and talk their ‘temporary partners’ into performing acts which mimic those available here on the internet, the worse it is, the better (in their view) ofcourse its disgusting but i had to give an example and that was one i could think of.

a guys secret life with his porn stash is very private, you wouldnt believe the people who i use to run into at sinsations nightclub (mitchel… strippers) back in the day.

im sorry, but you gotta really know a guy to know a guy, if you understand what i mean.

there isnt too many blokes i know, married or single, good looking or ugly who would turn down watching a porn flick, read FHM, it would explain a fair bit about the inner mind of a bloke

Apocalypse 5:22 am 23 Apr 05

having kiddy porn is illegial. it helps promote the act itself, if nobody look at porn (in general) do you think there would be so much of it out there? (assuming you are aware of the internet porn market), and another thing, rape and porn have no link what-so-ever

i dont mean to defend porn, but in all seriousness, i think the generalization is abit off….

i dunno, its 5:24am and my brain is abit off from all the fumes and crap involved in a motor restoration i just completed :/

probably best to ignore my comments but ill post them anyway! its my god given right as a canberran to whinge/argue

johnboy 10:02 pm 22 Apr 05

Kath,

It’s a mistake to assume anyone here agrees with anyone else, let alone all of us.

For myself I do believe in atonement and redemption.

I do believe that our penal system should seek to rehabilitate not deal out retribution.

But the difference between “normal” porn and kiddy porn is that consenting sex between men and grown women is legal. But sex with children is not.

His fantasy is repugnant.

Personally I’m deeply wary of “Precautionary Illegality” (be it drink driving laws or these porn laws), where no-one has actually been hurt but we proescute on the basis of potential harm.

But with the laws as they stand this sentence seems notably lenient.

Hence I made note of it.

Kath 5:08 pm 22 Apr 05

Am I the only person reading this that thinks there’s a bit of a knee-jerk reaction on this site? I’m in no way defending paedophiles in general, but what we’re talking about here is a guy who downloaded a large amount of porn, *not* someone who’s been out hurting people.

So, this guy has a bunch of nasty porn on his computer. A judge decides that he should be watched for a while to make sure that he’s not acting out his fantasies, and decrees that he be assessed to go into some kind of counseling program about it. Where’s the problem here? Remember, paedophiles are people who are capable of *free choice* – they aren’t necessarily sociopaths (although they might be, just as a gay or hetrosexual person might be) – and as human beings they are capable of deciding not to act on their fantasies, given proper support.

I’d make an assumption that the majority of straight men with an Internet connection would have downloaded some porn pictures at some point. This doesn’t mean that they are about to go out and rape women, only that they like looking at porn. If they did try to hurt someone, sure, put them away, but that’s not necessarily going to happen. (Indeed, the possession of a large porn collection often seems to preclude having sex with actual people!)

Apocalypse 4:00 pm 22 Apr 05

if he is castorated, then he poses no threat?

hahah @ kebab, why did i not think of that one??

Thumper 3:54 pm 22 Apr 05

Totally agree with you LG. Castorate the bastard and then throw him in gaol for a long long time.

RandomGit 2:59 pm 22 Apr 05

@Anonymous, news reports, confessions and other such public broadcasts of what people, paedophiles, have said. I make the distinction to point out that I don’t know any personally, doesn’t mean I don;t hear what they say though.

For example, I wish I could remember the name and program I saw this on, but, there is a paedophile in Sydney that after he was caught admitted that he was never going to stop feeling the urge, that the risk would never be mitigated by force of will even though he despised himself for it. So he voluntarily had himself castrated rather than risk hurting another child or being complicit in said acts.

Like I said, I wish I could reference it for credibilities sake. But there you go, just one of the many personal admissions I’ve seen.

LurkerGal 2:46 pm 22 Apr 05

It’s quite possible he deals with it in his job. So he knows it (or is told indirectly) the same way I know all people who use the term “kebab”, “gook” or “mud” to describe someone is a complete racist wanker.

Apocalypse 2:45 pm 22 Apr 05

anyone on this forum work for the RTA? how about a license plate number? id love to track this f***er down…

to think my mate is in jail over something so much less serious, while this guy is sitting at home watching high five

LurkerGal 2:44 pm 22 Apr 05

Git, you are so right. Paedophillia can not be cured, any more than being homosexual or heterosexual. People are sexually attracted to what they are sexually attracted to. End of story. The only way to stop them from preying on children is to keep them away from said children. If they only way to do that is prison, then so be it. I find it alarming that a paedophile gets off with a slap on the wrist, while a drug trafficker gets excecuted. Excecute the paedophile – the drug trafficker may be able to be saved!

2:44 pm 22 Apr 05

“Paedophiles tell me (indirectly).”

I’m intrigued as to how they indirectly tell you this.

RandomGit 2:39 pm 22 Apr 05

Paedophiles tell me (indirectly). Of all the people in the world to tell me, they are the ones I’ll believe it from first.

LurkerGal 2:33 pm 22 Apr 05

VG, I believe that he means it is an urge, like being homosexual, or heterosexual. If you are attracted to women, you won’t change, if you are attracted to men, you won’t change, if you are attracted to little kids……

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site